Search

Background: Acute hospital wards can be difficult places for many people living with dementia. Promoting comfort and wellbeing can be challenging in this environment. There is little evidence‐based support for professionals working on acute care wards on how to respond to distress and maximise comfort and wellbeing among patients living with dementia. Objectives: Our overall aim was to codesign an evidence‐based easy‐to‐use heuristic decision‐support framework, which was acceptable and practical but acknowledges the complex and acute nature of caring for patients with dementia in the hospital. This paper presents the development process and resulting framework. Methods: A codesign study was informed by data from (1) a literature review of the care and management of people living with dementia in acute hospitals; (2) a cohort study of comfort and discomfort in people with dementia in acute hospitals; and (3) interviews with family carers and health care professionals. We synthesised evidence from these data sources and presented to key stakeholders through codesign meetings and workshops to produce our decision‐support framework. Results: The framework consists of a series of flowcharts and operates using a three‐stage process of: (1) assess comfort/discomfort; (2) consider causes of discomfort; and (3) address patient needs to manage the discomfort. Conclusion: Working with key stakeholders, synthesising diverse quantitative and qualitative evidence to build a clinical framework is a feasible approach to help address the needs of patients living with dementia in an acute hospital setting. The result is a framework which is now ready for evaluation and implementation. Patient and Public Contribution: We worked closely with people living with dementia and family carers throughout this study, including the development of the study protocol with input on study development and design, through to inclusion in stakeholder workshops and codesign of the decision support framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This correction notice is for an article titled "Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a New psychosocial intervention to support Independence in Dementia (NIDUS-family) for family carers and people living with dementia in their own homes: a randomised controlled trial." The correction states that the 9th author's name is Victoria Vickerstaff, not Jessica Vickerstaff, and their affiliation is the "Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK" instead of the "Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK" as originally published. The original article has been corrected. The authors of the article are Alexandra Burton, Penny Rapaport, Marina Palomo, Kathryn Lord, Jessica Budgett, Julie Barber, Rachael Hunter, Laurie Butler, Victoria Vickerstaff, Kenneth Rockwood, Margaret Ogden, Debs Smith, Iain Lang, Gill Livingston, Briony Dow, Helen Kales, Jill Manthorpe, Kate Walters, Juanita Hoe, Vasiliki Orgeta, Quincy Samus, and Claudia Cooper. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: As populations age globally, there is an increasing prevalence of dementia, with an estimated 153 million living with dementia by 2050. Up to 70% of people with dementia experience dementia-related psychosis (D-RP). Antipsychotic medications are associated with many adverse effects in older people. This review aims to evaluate the evidence of non-pharmacological interventions in managing D-RP., Method: The search of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane included randomised controlled trials that evaluated non-pharmacological interventions. Data extraction and assessment of quality were assessed independently by two researchers. Heterogenous interventions were pooled using meta-analysis., Results: A total of 18 articles (n = 2040 participants) were included and categorised into: sensory-, activity-, cognitive- and multi-component-orientated. Meta-analyses showed no significant impact in reducing hallucinations or delusions but person-centred care, cognitive rehabilitation, music therapy, and robot pets showed promise in single studies., Conclusions and Implications: Future interventions should be developed and evaluated with a specific focus on D-RP as this was not the aim for many of the included articles., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The Laser in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (LiGHT) Trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) compared to topical hypotensive medication as 1 st -line therapy for ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma. This sub-study explores the impact of pre-treatment (baseline) intraocular pressure (IOP) on treatment response for SLT and medication., Design: Post hoc analysis of randomised control trial data., Participants: 1146 eyes from 662 patients were included in this analysis: 559 eyes in the SLT group and 587 in the medication group., Methods: IOP reduction at 8 weeks following treatment with either SLT or prostaglandin analogue (PGA) eye drop initiation was assessed at different levels of baseline IOP, and the groups were compared. Differences in absolute and percentage IOP lowering between SLT and PGA medication were tested with a linear mixed effects model. Differences in the probability of achieving ≥20% IOP lowering between SLT and PGA medication, at different levels of baseline IOP, was estimated using a logistic mixed effects model., Main Outcome Measure: IOP lowering response to SLT versus PGA eye drops., Results: Mean IOP was not significantly different between the groups, at baseline or 8 weeks following treatment initiation. Both treatments showed greater IOP lowering at higher baseline IOP and less IOP lowering at lower baseline IOP. SLT tended to achieve more IOP lowering than PGA drops at higher baseline IOP. PGA drops performed better at lower baseline IOP, and the difference compared to SLT, in terms of percentage IOP reduction, was significant at baseline IOP ≤ 17 mmHg. There was a significant difference in the relationship between baseline IOP and probability of ≥20% IOP lowering between the two treatments (p = 0.01), with SLT being more successful than PGA at baseline IOP > 22.51 mmHg., Conclusions: These data confirm previous reports of greater IOP lowering with higher baseline IOP for both SLT and topical hypotensive medication. In treatment naïve eyes, at higher baseline IOP, SLT was more successful at achieving ≥20% IOP lowering than PGA drops. At lower baseline IOP, a statistically greater percentage, but not absolute, IOP lowering was seen with PGA drops compared to SLT, although the clinical significance of this is uncertain., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)